Uncategorized

Safety Law News for May 29, 2026

by  •  • 0 Comments

— In New York, the Supreme Court (the trial court in New York), held that educators have “ultimate authority for access to students, school buildings and school property.”  The litigation arose out a dispute over access by a person responsible for an after-school program held on school grounds.  As the relationship between the person and educators began to dissolve, including an incident in which the person “left the school grounds after being issued trespass papers,” educators sent a letter advising the person that “he was prohibited from entering upon any (school district) property without express prior written consent from the office of (the Superintendent).”  The court upheld the decision by the school district.  Applying clearly established law, the court ruled that “an unfettered right to access school grounds does not exist.”  First, the court held that “a school has a duty to ensure the safety of its students in its physical custody or orbit of authority.”  Second, “there is a long-standing judicial deference afforded local school boards to exercise ultimate authority for access to students, school buildings and school property.”  Third, the test for examining the use of this authority is based upon the status of public schools as “a nonpublic forum (in which) the administrations thereof may therefore control access to the School based on subject matter and speaker identity so long as the distinctions drawn are reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum and are viewpoint neutral.”  The court cited the record to rule that “here, District Respondents implemented a requirement that petitioner must request written permission from Respondent Superintendent at least 72 hours in advance of entering school property based upon two documented confrontations.”  Therefore, the school district “rationally determined that the school district’s decision to require that petitioner obtain written permission from its superintendent before he can enter school grounds, particularly where the restriction is subject to annual review at petitioner’s request, is entirely appropriate under the circumstances.”  Wagner v. Rosa

— In Virginia, officials in the Newport News Public Schools are implementing safety upgrades to their campuses.  The upgrades “include weapon detection systems, clear backpack requirements, expanded security staffing, and stricter visitor access procedures.”  The new policies are viewed as a response to a “ 2024 grand jury report (that) found multiple safety concerns and administrative failures leading up to (a) shooting, in which first-grade teacher Abby Zwerner was shot by a 6-year-old student who brought a gun to school.

— In Missouri, the legislature is considering adding armed “Missouri Rangers” to school campuses to enhance student safety.  House Bill 905 would “allow schools to hire volunteer or paid guards called “Missouri Rangers” who could carry a gun on school grounds.”  The legislation “proposes a maximum of 160 hours of training, specifying that the program must include lessons on “close quarter combat,” bomb and arson training, de-escalation among others.”

— In Delaware, the legislature is recommending a policy “that would allow trained and authorized employees to carry guns on private school property.”  Senate Bill 304 “would create an exemption within Delaware’s Safe School Zone law to allow designated “sentries” to carry a gun or projectile weapon on private school campuses under strict training and oversight requirements.”  Each person “would have to be employees of the private school and hold a valid concealed carry permit or qualifying law enforcement credentials.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for May 27, 2026

by  •  • 0 Comments

— In Texas, the Texas Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling that suppressed a class room audio recording of illegal conduct by a school resource officer.  The SRO “was on duty at (the) Middle School when he and (the) vice principal … ordered students out of a classroom to search for suspected contraband, a vape pen, in the students’ belongings.  A student left behind her cellphone with the recording function turned on, capturing audio of (their) conversation during the search.  The recording (indicated they) located the vape pen in a cabinet and discussed placing it in a particular student’s backpack without evidence of whom it belonged to.”   The SRO was arrested for “intentionally subjecting three students to searches he knew were unlawful and for planting evidence.”  The officer filed a motion to suppress the audio recording, “arguing that it was obtained in violation of (the state wiretap statute) and his constitutional rights because neither (the SRO nor the school administrator) consented to being recorded by a third party.”  The trial court suppressed the audio recording.  The appellate court reversed.  The reversal was based on clearly established law that the SRO has a “diminished expectation of privacy … because (they occupy) a position of public trust and exercises special powers.”  The appellate court went on the state that, “the audio recording was made by a student who was a private citizen.  There is no allegation that this student was acting on behalf of law enforcement or doing anything other than acting in a private capacity.  Accordingly, (the SRO’s) Fourth Amendment rights were not violated.”  The resolution of the Fourth Amendment defense also resolved the statutory argument of the SRO because the wiretap statute “incorporates the Fourth Amendment’s legitimate-expectation-of-privacy standard.”  The case was remanded back to trial.  State v. Gonzalez

— In Kentucky, officials in the Bullitt County Public Schools are creating an in-house school police department.  They are hiring a chief of police to command the school resource officers currently deployed to its schools.  The goal is to tailor (the SRO job) to a specific type of officer … looking for the opportunity to be in schools, build relationships with students and help us make sure that we’re keeping our students and community safe.”

— In Georgia, the “Barrow County Sheriff’s Office, Board of Commissioners and Board of Education reached a new agreement for security services for the school district.  Additional school resource officers will be deployed, from 12 to 25.  The agreement also “more clearly outlines each of the three parties’ responsibilities.”

— In Texas, the “Texas Education Agency released its annual audit report on school safety and security in Texas…Around 90% of the school districts and campuses in Texas had no issues with the initial phases of security preparedness, according to the report.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for May 19, 2026

by  •  • 0 Comments

— In Louisiana, the United States Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling against a school resource officer who assisted school officials in “removing (a) mother from school office.”  In a case involving suspected child endangerment, social workers “contacted the high school and ordered the school not to release the girl to the (parents’) custody.  The school then began locking all exterior school doors to prevent the (parents) entry.  The school also contacted (the school resource officer) and asked him to report to the school’s front office.  The school informed (the SRO) that it had been instructed not to release the girl to the (parents), and that an agent of the Department was on his way to the school.”  Once at the school the mother “became angry and used profanity.  The school secretary warned (her) that she would have to leave the office if she continued to use profanity.  Shortly afterward, (the mother) stepped partially outside the office to talk to her husband. She then re-entered the office.  Following (her) exchange with her husband, (the SRO) asked (the mother) to step outside the office.  But (she) refused to leave without her daughter.  Surveillance footage depicts her gesturing angrily while speaking to (the SRO).  (The SRO) grasped (her) arm and pulled her toward the door.  When (she) refused to move, (the SRO) pushed her a few inches through the office doorway.  The appellate court reversed because “a constitutional violation does not occur every time an officer touches someone… Under the circumstances, we cannot say that such de minimis force was “clearly” excessive and unreasonable.  (The SRO) knew that the (social worker) was investigating potential child abuse and that it had instructed the school not to release the girl to the (parents’) custody.  (The mother) was visibly upset, demanded custody of her child, and refused to comply with (the SRO’s) instructions.  For the safety of everyone involved, (the SRO) removed (the mother) from the office.  Once (she) was outside, (the SRO) ceased all force.  We hold that the force used by (the SRO) was de minimis, and that (the mother) suffered no violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court thus erred.”  Carter v. Dupuy

— In Florida,  the legislature enacted a law that expands the school guardian program to Florida colleges.  Under the provisions of House Bill 757 “teachers and staff will be able to carry weapons after training with the sheriff’s office. The law also requires annual security risk assessments at every campus to find safety flaws and make improvements.”

— In Oklahoma, the legislature has enacted House Bill 2979.  Called the “Talyn Bain Act,” the goal of the law is to improve safety for students “by establishing lower speed limits on certain highways near schools.”  The provisions of the law direct “the Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) to create 45 mph school zones on portions of state highways upon request from a local jurisdiction, provided specific safety conditions are met. These include highways with speed limits of 65 mph or higher that run within 150 yards of a school and lack a direct exit ramp into the school zone.”

— In Texas, Senate Bill 546 has been enacted to improve school bus safety.  It’s provisions require “all public school buses to have three-point seat belts by 2029. Three-point seat belts include a shoulder belt and a lap belt, as opposed to a two-point belt, which only goes across the lap.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for April 17, 2026

by  • 

— In Texas, the United States District Court upheld school discipline against a student who “refused to surrender his cell phone to school personnel prior to taking the PSAT test, and (a student who) refused to surrender his phone to be placed (along with all his other classmates’ phones) in a blue pouch during the pendency of a teacher’s class.”  School policy “allows students to carry cell phones in school for safety purposes, (but) they are not to be used during testing.  Additionally, teachers are empowered to collect phones so that they do not disrupt class.  More importantly, students are instructed that they shall not fail to comply with directives given by school personnel.”  The students argued that schools “cannot regulate cell phone usage on its campus” because “the right to possess a cell phone is a sacrosanct right that supersedes all other provisions of the Code or other directives of an instructor.”  The court held that “there is no constitutional right to possess a cell phone in class.  Furthermore, to temporarily deprive a student of his cell phone during a class or a test and return it to them after the class or test is completed (or even at the conclusion of the school day) is not a constitutional violation.” Therefore the Court found that neither (student) has any legally cognizable claim regarding their respective cell phone scenarios.  Brown v. Splendora ISD

— In Kentucky, “the Kentucky Education Association (KEA) is urging all Kentucky school employees, both certified and classified, to share their experiences in a safety and student behavior survey.  Following the passage and signing into law of Senate Bill 101, landmark legislation aimed at addressing assaults against educators, the KEA wants every public school teacher and school employee in Kentucky to take part in a new, anonymous School Behavior Support survey, designed to capture real-world data on school safety and student behavior.

— In Minnesota, “Democrats in the Minnesota House of Representatives voted down GOP school safety legislation (HF 3493) that included additional funding, local options for school districts to create an anonymous threat reporting system, and would let schools suspend students for longer.”

— In Tennessee, “Knox County Schools is prohibiting the use of magnetic strips on classroom doors after a criminal trespassing incident at Hardin Valley campuses earlier this month.”  Officials say “individual classrooms have been using magnetic strips to allow students access in and out of classrooms during bathroom breaks.”  Going forward, “all district facilities are equipped with automatic door locks and all doors must remain locked during the instructional day.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for April 10, 2026

by  • 

— In Virginia, the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a student’s case when the search of his phone revealed a sexually explicit photo of a classmate.  The 13 year old middle school student, who “received a sexually explicit photo from a female classmate…shared that photo with some other students during the school day. Teachers quickly caught wind of the matter and notified (school administration).”  An administrator, in the presence of the student and a school resource officer (SRO), “searched the photo gallery” of the student’s phone.  Eventually with the help of the student  the sexually explicit photo was revealed.  The student was charged with “possession of child pornography,” which was dismissed after he “completed the terms and conditions of the deferred disposition set by the juvenile court.”  The student filed a lawsuit “alleging violations of his Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights,” e.g., that the questioning violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and the search of his phone violated the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.  Much of the outcome of the case fell upon the role of the SRO and the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the school district and the police department.  The appellate court emphasized that under the MOU “the principal or school staff must immediately report any criminal activity to the SRO.”  In addition, the MOU placed limits upon the SRO.  First, “while the SRO is authorized to take law enforcement actions at the school, he or she is not responsible for the enforcement of school rules or regulations.”  Second, an SRO is constrained in his/her ability to search a student “unless they have probable cause to believe the student is violating the law.”  Third, “the MOU further states that SROs ‘will not become involved in student or school searches which are conducted by school officials and are not supported by probable cause,’ and ‘will not encourage or request a school official to act as the SRO’s agent in conducting searches of students.’”  As to the questioning, the appellate court ruled that “a student simply being questioned by a principal would not generally qualify as a custodial interrogation.”  And “the record does not…indicate any coordination between the (school administrator and the SRO) to accomplish some unlawful, ‘conspiratorial objective.’”  As to the search, the court held that the administrator’s search “was both justified at its inception and reasonable in scope… given the circumstances justifying it (i.e., allegations of child pornography and the distribution thereof in school).”  And the SRO “sat by while (the administrator) searched (the student’s) phone; she did not search it with him.”  O.W. v. Carr

— In Minnesota, the legislature is considering “HF3753/SF390 to provide $4 million to the Department of Public Safety to implement a pilot project using the technology at eight schools across the state… The technology uses a combination of cameras, radar and artificial intelligence to spot weapons like guns, even if they’re concealed in a backpack or pocket, as soon as someone carries them on campus.”

— In Kentucky, Senate Bill 101 has been enacted.  It establishes “statewide standards for how schools respond to assaults against staff, require(s) incidents to be reported to law enforcement and ensure(s) accountability in situations where reporting requirements are not followed.”  The provisions of the text of the law require that “students in grades 6 through 12 who cause or attempt to cause injury to school staff are required to be expelled for a minimum of 12 months.”

— In Virginia,  H 592 has been enacted allowing “any school employee (to) wear a panic button that they can use to alert authorities if there is an emergency that requires an immediate response like for a school shooting.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for March 27, 2026

by  • 

— In Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the adjudication of a student who was charged with Fourth Degree Sexual Assault, despite the fact that “his statements should have been excluded because they were obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona.”  The violation occurred when the student was “questioned … at school in a small office used by the school resource officer” after “a classmate reported that (the student) had touched him in the groin.”  During the questioning, “a second, fully-uniformed officer stood in front of the door.”  Later in the day, the officers “continued to question him a short while later as he sat in a school-suspension cubicle. While under interrogation, (the student) admitted that he accidentally hit the other student.”  The Court ruled that the rights of the student were violated in obtaining the statement because the student was in custody and “the officer did not provide Miranda warnings to (the student). She never told him that he was free to leave, that he did not need to answer questions, or that he could call his parents.”  Applying the rule of law from the case of  Miranda v. Arizona, the Court stated that “many courts have applied Miranda in the school setting… a child’s age properly informs the Miranda custody analysis… special care we must take when analyzing the interrogation of children. It is a commonsense reality and beyond dispute that children will often feel bound to submit to police questioning when an adult in the same circumstances would feel free to leave… Second, courts consider the role of police versus school administration; the more police officers are present, and the more they play a role in questioning, the more likely a student is in custody.”  Even so, however, the Wisconsin Supreme Court applied the “harmless error rule”  which states that “an error is harmless if it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error.”  Here, the Court reasoned “the school resource officer’s testimony about (the student’s) statements was duplicative of other testimony, unnecessary for a finding of intent, and went unmentioned during the State’s closing. We conclude that, beyond a reasonable doubt, a rational factfinder would have found (the student) delinquent even without his statements while under Miranda custody.  State v. K.R.C.

— In Georgia, school safety legislation is moving toward the Governor’s desk that will require weapons detection systems in all public schools.  House Bill 1023 would also require every student to be checked for weapons when arriving at a public school each day.

— In Missouri, HB 3174 has been introduced to require that public and charter school employees wear a “panic alert device that allows the school employee to communicate with others inside the building and immediately contact emergency services.”  The legislation also “includes provisions for a school-wide emergency notification system, including automated strobe lights, direct connections to the intercom or public announcement system, and automated computer displays.”

— In Minnesota, a school bus safety bill sits on the Governor’s desk after passage by the legislature.  HF 4063 requires “vehicles to stop for a school bus once its red lights begin flashing, regardless of whether its stop sign arm has been fully extended.”   “It also includes language that says a bus’s flashing amber lights serve as a warning that flashing red lights are coming soon.”  The bill includes $8.4 million in grants for school districts to install stop-signal arm cameras.